|
*nods*
First time I ever really became aware of that kind of thing was when Thatcher was PM. There was a big problem with illegal raves...well, i say a big problem, it wasn't really. But it was big enough to catch the attention of authorities and media, and painted as one of the worst threats to child safety/morality and public order since ... I dunno, the last one....punk probably.
So a new law was written and all the whole while the debate was about the 'right to party' and the need to ensure these dangerous illegal raves dont corrupt our youth and lead them all to die horrific ecstasy deaths. But hidden underneath were fundamental changes to things like the right to assemble in peaceful protest *smiles* and the right of police to intervene and disperse groups, and to intervene anybody travelling 'in convoy'. And a bunch of other stuff along those lines.
Then my own party when in government, leapt all over the threat of terrorism to justify a frightening toolbox of security and policing measures, including putting the whole of Parliament Square undera kind of zoned security whereby protest is only legal with a permit, applied for in advance with route requested and a bunch of other details. So, only protests which have been approved by the authorities are legal.
And now here we are. A few nights of disturbance and we're straight back to the Big Book of Dictator Solutions again.
The internet bill in the States seems more of the same. Moral outrage or security panics just seem to get leapt on by the political elite (and wannabe elite) as a rationale to further erode civil liberties. I daresay there may be a balancing one way or the other, but it seems to cut across the political spectrum. Extremely worrying.
|